Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Duravision Inc., Dominica News Online, or any of its subsidiary brands
The optics of recent back-to-back public engagement by the DLP-led Government of two stalwarts of the opposition United Workers Party (UWP) have clearly been too much for many supporters of the UWP. Some are irate, opposition media seems eager to chicken-dance around the images, other supporters are visibly hurt; even at times appearing to be, in local parlance, toumantay. Too many see it as betrayal by their former heroes. For others who do not support the UWP, the engagement appears, at the least, “curious.” Both interpretations of the engagements suggest one thing: To many Dominicans, there should be no interaction and political accommodation between members of the
incumbent Dominica Labour Party (DLP) and those of the opposition, especially the UWP.
Curiously, many who oppose political collaboration between actors of opposing sides actually call for collaboration among all opposing actors to topple the incumbent. Collaboration, then, seems to be only healthy and necessary when it serves to reduce the political capital and authority of the incumbent.
This is dangerous thinking! A mental frame like this is counterproductive and anti-democratic. It presumes that political conflict; that is, disagreements between political actors, must be sustained and permanent with little regard for the national good. This approach is self-interest-driven and elitist and cannot lead to national development. Second, a mental frame that sees the opponent as an enemy logically leads to the dismissal of any possible contribution of that opponent, “the other,” to the process of national development, depriving the state of an additional bank of resources to pursue national development goals. The question, therefore, for Dominicans is: who benefits when opposing political actors in Dominica continue to fight and eye each other with distrust? A corollary question is: what must we do to prevent anti-democratic forces from maneuvering to capture the democratic process and stymie our march to prosperity?
The answers begin with a recognition that democracy was never designed to institutionalize permanent hostility. Rather, democracy exists to manage disagreement peacefully while enabling collective action in pursuit of the common good. Contemporary scholarship on political polarization demonstrates that when politics becomes organized around an “us versus them” mentality, democratic institutions begin to weaken. Political scientists Jennifer McCoy, Tahmina Rahman, and Murat Somer argue that severe polarization transforms ordinary political differences into mutually hostile identities, causing citizens and political actors to view each other not as competitors but as enemies (See Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities). In such circumstances, compromise and collaboration become betrayal, dialogue becomes weakness, and governance becomes increasingly difficult. The result is often democratic erosion, institutional paralysis, and declining public trust in government.
This observation is especially relevant for small island developing states such as Dominica. Unlike large countries with vast populations, mature democratic institutions, and extensive resource bases, small states depend heavily on social cohesion, political stability, and efficient governance. Every capable citizen, regardless of political affiliation, represents a valuable national asset. When political conflict becomes weaponised and sustained, the nation effectively chooses to leave part of its human capital unused, political loyalty becomes more important than competence, and opportunities for collaboration are sacrificed on the altar of partisan rivalry.
The Caribbean provides numerous examples of how excessive political antagonism can hinder development. In several territories, election cycles have often been characterized by intense partisan mobilization that leaves societies deeply divided long after ballots are counted. Governments expend considerable political energy defending themselves against opponents, while oppositions dedicate substantial resources to weakening incumbents rather than contributing constructively to national problem-solving. In these circumstances, public policy becomes a casualty of political warfare. Long-term development plans are abandoned whenever governments change, and projects are evaluated not on their merit but on which political party proposed them.
The experience of Jamaica during periods of extreme political tribalism in the 1970s and 1980s offers a cautionary lesson. Political competition became so intense that communities were frequently identified by party allegiance, contributing to social fragmentation and violence. The developmental consequences were significant, as political instability discouraged investment and undermined confidence in public institutions. While Jamaica has made important strides in reducing political violence and strengthening democratic norms, its history demonstrates the high costs of allowing political conflict to become entrenched in social life.
Similarly, the political crises experienced in Guyana over several decades illustrate how ethnic and partisan polarization can complicate governance and delay development. When political competition is perceived as a zero-sum struggle for survival rather than a contest of ideas, distrust deepens, and national consensus becomes difficult to achieve. Developmental priorities often become secondary to partisan calculations.
The academic literature confirms what these Caribbean experiences suggest: The most dangerous form of political conflict is not disagreement itself but what scholars call “pernicious polarization,” a condition in which society divides into hostile camps that increasingly distrust one another and become willing to undermine democratic norms in pursuit of victory (see Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies). Such polarization often encourages political entrepreneurs to mobilize supporters through fear, resentment, and demonization of opponents. Over time, democratic institutions become weakened because citizens begin to value partisan success above democratic principles.
This reality should concern all Dominicans. If every interaction between members of opposing political parties is interpreted as betrayal, then democracy itself becomes impoverished. Healthy democracies require competition, but they also require cooperation. Indeed, some of the most successful democracies in the world have flourished precisely because political actors recognize that while they may disagree on methods, they share responsibility for the nation’s future.
Governments and oppositions often collaborate on national security, economic development, disaster response, education reform, and constitutional matters. Such cooperation does not eliminate political competition; rather, it ensures that competition serves national development instead of undermining it.
The dangers of sustained political conflict extend beyond policy paralysis. Polarization also creates opportunities for anti-democratic actors to manipulate public sentiment. When citizens become convinced that opponents are enemies rather than fellow citizens, they become more willing to support undemocratic actions against those opponents. Research demonstrates that highly polarized societies are more vulnerable to democratic backsliding because political leaders can justify attacks on institutions, restrictions on dissent, and the erosion of democratic norms by portraying rivals as existential threats (see Déjà vu? Polarization and Endangered Democracies in the 21st Century; see also Rethinking Political Polarization).
For small developing states, this danger is particularly acute. Political instability discourages foreign investment, weakens confidence in institutions, and distracts governments from addressing pressing issues such as economic diversification, climate resilience, youth unemployment, education, healthcare, and technological innovation. Dominica, like many Caribbean nations, faces significant development challenges that require national unity and collective effort. Climate change alone demands unprecedented levels of cooperation among political actors, private sector leaders, civil society organizations, and citizens. No single political party possesses all the ideas, expertise, or resources necessary to secure the country’s future. The path forward, therefore, requires a fundamental reimagining of political engagement.
Dominicans must reject the notion that permanent conflict is a sign of democratic health. Democracy is healthiest when disagreement coexists with mutual respect, institutional trust, and a shared commitment to national advancement. Political actors should be encouraged—not condemned—when they engage each other constructively across partisan lines. Citizens should judge political leaders not by the intensity of their hostility toward opponents but by their capacity to solve problems, build consensus, and advance the public good.
Ultimately, the greatest beneficiaries of sustained political conflict are rarely ordinary citizens. Rather, they are political elites and opportunists who thrive on division, fear, and distrust. Meanwhile, the broader society bears the costs through lost opportunities, weakened institutions, delayed development, and diminished democratic quality. Dominica’s future prosperity depends not on the perpetual defeat of one political camp by another but on the ability of all citizens to recognize that national development is a shared enterprise.
The central challenge before Dominicans is therefore not how to intensify and weaponise political conflict but how to transform political competition into a productive force for national progress. By resisting the weaponisation of political differences, encouraging dialogue across partisan boundaries, and placing national development above narrow partisan interests, Dominica can strengthen both its democracy and its prospects for prosperity. The nation must choose between a politics of permanent antagonism and a politics of constructive engagement. History, scholarship, and Caribbean experience all suggest that only the latter can deliver sustainable development and democratic maturity.
Ambassador Dr. Gerard Jean-Jacques (PhD/Political Science, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada) is Ambassador to CARICOM and Commissioner to the OECS Areas of Specialization: Public Policy and Public Management, Democracy, Public Governance, and Power Relations
